If eventually approved, the county agency would become the first law enforcement agency in California to deploy a drone. The board did not vote on the item. Coincidentally, the hearing was on the same day that two members of Congress introduced legislation that would regulate the domestic use of drones.

Last week, the City of Seattle canceled its own drone program due to public outcry.

Here, dozens of local citizens came out to voice their opposition to the proposed drone purchase, citing privacy concerns. Many wore bright pink “NO DRONES” stickers on their shirts and jackets.

“I think it's important to know about the larger context that we're now hearing, that's the militarization of law enforcement that is progressing at a breakneck pace,” said Susan Harmon of Code Pink, an anti-war group.

The tiny drone, which was displayed at the hearing and fits disassembled into a small suitcase, can fly for up to 24 minutes at a height of 400 feet and only has a maximum radius of a quarter-mile from the operator. Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern argued that the drones will be used primarily for search and rescue operations.

Privacy vs. public safety

The sheriff sparred publicly with dissenters from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Both activist groups have argued forcefully for the county to impose much stricter privacy limitations, and some worried that they could further be weaponized.

“We will not use this for surveillance,” Ahern re-iterated. “We will not use this for weaponry.”

Ahern claimed that his department had consulted extensively with the ACLU, while Linda Lye, an ACLU attorney who was present and testified before the board, vociferously disagreed with that assessment.

“The vast majority of our recommendations were rejected,” she said.

The EFF also expressed the need for such rules to be codified, despite the sheriff's promises.

"First, I would like to underscore the current and future capabilities of this technology," Trevor Timm, an activist at the EFF, told the board. "Drones can be equipped with many different types of surveillance equipment. All drones carry some sort of camera with recording capabilities. Some newer high-definition cameras—previously used only by the military—are so powerful they can see the color of your shoelaces from a mile away."

"The drone the Sheriff is asking for now likely won’t be the Office’s last drone purchase. The technology will likely be obsolete in months, if it isn’t already. This is why it is crucial to have rules of the road in place now. Because once the door is opened, it will become much harder to restrict drone use in the future."

Chemical sniffing could come later

Sheriff Ahern did add that the department would eventually like to add various physical sensors, however.

“We'd like to add a chemical component where we could fly it through a cloud, like from refinery smoke, and return it to us and examine what hazards were in the cloud,” he told the board.

Ahern told Ars after the hearing that his department has been investigating the use of drones over the past two years, and Alameda County needs this new hardware because it has many semi-rural and rural areas, including forests, hillsides, and valleys.

“I think this is one of the things that would benefit the community,” he said. “I think it’s such a great idea that I’m willing to listen to arguments on both sides.”

The Alameda County Sheriff's Department did release a five-page draft document, outlining a “general order,” for operations of the drones.

It outlines ten possible “authorized missions,” including “Post-incident crime scene preservation and documentation,” “Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) missions,” “Response to hazardous materials spills,” “Public safety and life preservation” such as a hostage scenario, and “pursuant to a search warrant.”

“Upon completion of each sUAS [drone] mission the recorded data shall be reviewed and evaluated for evidentiary value,” the order states. “Data of identifiable individuals captured during a sUAS mission shall not be retained unless there is reasonable suspicion that evidence of criminal activity is present. All retained data shall be maintained or destroyed pursuant to Sheriff's Office records retention and evidence policies and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.”

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar